Consultation: stereo microscope stand for photomacrography
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Consultation: stereo microscope stand for photomacrography
Esteemed photomacrographers:
CHALLENGE: I need a stable, solid, vertically oriented mount for my macro kit: namely an automated focus rail, modest DSLR, a couple of infinity corrected microscope objectives mounted to camera lenses. For now, just 4x and 10x, but possibly 20x at some future point. I use electronic flash with briefest possible pulse.
I have investigated various options: heavy duty copy stands, vertically mounted aluminum optical rail, vertically mounted optical post mounted on an aluminum breadboard, a sort of tombstone made from aluminum breadboards and other optomechanical parts, stereo microscope stands, etc...
Thus far, the most effective (cost-benefit) solution would seem to be a used, heavy duty stereo microscope stand with a vertical pole of 1.5 inch diameter. The general idea is to attach arca compatible clamps to the pole by means of "rod clamps". In this way, I expect my macro kit, and positioners, can be mounted solidly to the stand's pole, in the desired vertical orientation.
photo' source
My questions, regarding this stereo microscope stand solution, are:
1. Overall, ¿does this stereo microscope stand solution sound plausibly adequate for stated needs?
2. In terms of vibration, ¿how would one reasonably expect this stereo microscope stand option to typically compare to a vertically mounted 66mm aluminum optical rail option? Given that both options are in equally optimum condition, sorothane feet, and so on.
3. ¿what features should I look for, in order for a stereo microscope stand to be adequate for above stated end use?
4. ¿what stereo microscope stand considerations have I missed?
5. ¿can you think of any other cost effective alternatives I have missed?
Your considered opinions and collective insight are greatly appreciated!
CHALLENGE: I need a stable, solid, vertically oriented mount for my macro kit: namely an automated focus rail, modest DSLR, a couple of infinity corrected microscope objectives mounted to camera lenses. For now, just 4x and 10x, but possibly 20x at some future point. I use electronic flash with briefest possible pulse.
I have investigated various options: heavy duty copy stands, vertically mounted aluminum optical rail, vertically mounted optical post mounted on an aluminum breadboard, a sort of tombstone made from aluminum breadboards and other optomechanical parts, stereo microscope stands, etc...
Thus far, the most effective (cost-benefit) solution would seem to be a used, heavy duty stereo microscope stand with a vertical pole of 1.5 inch diameter. The general idea is to attach arca compatible clamps to the pole by means of "rod clamps". In this way, I expect my macro kit, and positioners, can be mounted solidly to the stand's pole, in the desired vertical orientation.
photo' source
My questions, regarding this stereo microscope stand solution, are:
1. Overall, ¿does this stereo microscope stand solution sound plausibly adequate for stated needs?
2. In terms of vibration, ¿how would one reasonably expect this stereo microscope stand option to typically compare to a vertically mounted 66mm aluminum optical rail option? Given that both options are in equally optimum condition, sorothane feet, and so on.
3. ¿what features should I look for, in order for a stereo microscope stand to be adequate for above stated end use?
4. ¿what stereo microscope stand considerations have I missed?
5. ¿can you think of any other cost effective alternatives I have missed?
Your considered opinions and collective insight are greatly appreciated!
Something similar but bigger is what I use. The rod is solid 25mm and it is pretty sensible to vibrations, but this is not much problem with EFSC
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 7184#67184
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 7184#67184
Pau
Re: Consultation: stereo microscope stand for photomacrograp
The deflection of rail depends on the Elastic modulus of the material (steel three times higher then alumina) and the cubed hight against the bending axis. So 66mm hight beats steel ø30 and I think the 66mm rail will be much stiffer and therefore better against vibration.Carmen wrote: 2. In terms of vibration, ¿how would one reasonably expect this stereo microscope stand option to typically compare to a vertically mounted 66mm aluminum optical rail option? Given that both options are in equally optimum condition, sorothane feet, and so on.
The next topic is: on a square shaped rail it is easier to mount an arca clamp than on an round rail.
So I would recommend a 100x100 alumina profile like this:
http://www.boschrexroth.com/en/xc/produ ... ents/index
where you can get a lot of connectors/accessory and mounting something like a light arm or a light reflector becomes quite easy.
regards
Lothar
Re: Consultation: stereo microscope stand for photomacrograp
Thank you Lothar! So would it be correct to say that an equivalent mass of aluminum is approx' 3x less prone to vibration than steel? - at least in principle?lothman wrote: . . . The deflection of rail depends on the Elastic modulus of the material (steel three times higher then alumina) and the cubed hight against the bending axis. So 66mm hight beats steel ø30 and I think the 66mm rail will be much stiffer and therefore better against vibration.
For an aluminum profile (or aluminum rail) to work adequately, it would seem that the trick is to minimize expensive optomechanical mounting parts: mount the focus rail as efficiently as possible, mount to base as efficiently as possible.lothman wrote: . . . I would recommend a 100x100 alumina profile like this . . .
An aluminum rail with an arca compatible dovetail shape could couple directly to the focus rail, by means of a "back-to-back" arca compatible clamp.
It would be even more efficient to mount a simple arca compatible clamp directly to an aluminum rail, perhaps by means of T-slot groove and matching T-nuts.
I will continue to investigate aluminum rails, with an eye to an minimizing expensive optomechanical mounting parts. Please let me know if anything suitable occurs to you.
Re: Consultation: stereo microscope stand for photomacrograp
I have not calculated but my feelings says this is wrong. It is not a question of mass but more of volume and its distance to the so called neutral axis. Alumina has one third of density of steele so with same mass you have three times the volume (today they make bicycle frames from alumina, larger diameter of tubes, less weight and less deflection)Carmen wrote: Thank you Lothar! So would it be correct to say that an equivalent mass of aluminum is approx' 3x less prone to vibration than steel? - at least in principle?
What describes the resistance against deflection is the moment of inertia and of course the elasticity module of the material. I have no links in english language but this my help:
http://www.learneasy.info/MDME/MEMmods/ ... nding.html
so you see increasing "d" (cubed) has the most effect. Or in other words increasing the diameter of your rail has much more effect against deflection. For vibration damping also comes in consideration, but the less movement occurs usually the lesser has to be damped.
yes that's the way to go.Carmen wrote: For an aluminum profile (or aluminum rail) to work adequately, it would seem that the trick is to minimize expensive optomechanical mounting parts: mount the focus rail as efficiently as possible, mount to base as efficiently as possible.
yep but therefore you might have to produce some custom parts.Carmen wrote: An aluminum rail with an arca compatible dovetail shape could couple directly to the focus rail, by means of a "back-to-back" arca compatible clamp.
It would be even more efficient to mount a simple arca compatible clamp directly to an aluminum rail, perhaps by means of T-slot groove and matching T-nuts.
currently I plan to convert a Nikon Focus Block into a bellows, so carrying lens and camera with as little as possible serial interfaces.Carmen wrote: I will continue to investigate aluminum rails, with an eye to an minimizing expensive optomechanical mounting parts. Please let me know if anything suitable occurs to you.
Re: Consultation: stereo microscope stand for photomacrograp
http://www.mindat.org/article.php/2087/ ... ive+OpticsCarmen wrote: ... Please let me know if anything suitable occurs to you.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 8b5cf04a87
http://www.opto.de/cms/index.php?article_id=429&clang=0
yes should be the second moment of inertia, sorry for my bad translation. Also the distance to the neutral axis is very important.ChrisR wrote:Not Second Moment of Area?What describes the resistance against deflection is the moment of inertia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyRZ0WIhCdU
Esteemed Lothar and photomacrographers:
First, thank you for the clarification on the properties of aluminum. I suspected I was missing something.
Second, I was so inspired by the stand made of aluminum profiles by Volker Betz, that I spent several hours investigating this option. If you know Volker Betz, please express my gratitude for showing it, and admiration of his/her inventiveness!
The more I investigate this heavy aluminum profiles option, the more convincing it seems. Bosch Rexroth produces a 45x270mm profile that weighs 16.7kg/meter. This seems a plausible alternative to a breadboard base.
I found a 50x100 profile that seems to be a plausible candiate for a the stand's column. My idea is to mount arca compatible clamps can directly to the aluminum profile. And I believe this profile can be firmly secured to the base plate with the correct hardware, thus serving as a sturdy vertical column. The result may prove to be superior to a stereo microscope stand.
CrisR, I had the same idea of filling with small lead pellets, or other similar material, but this may not be necessary. With the above mentioned profiles, I calculate the mass will surpass 10kg -plus gussets, T-nuts, bolts, arca compatible clamps, stage, etc...
QUESTION: Do you think the above outlined stand made of aluminum profile is excessive? More than necesary for 20x, with bright continuous light? Adequate for 50x? I would hate to come up short at some future point, so prefer to error on the side of less prone to vibration. But again the need to control costs is always present.
First, thank you for the clarification on the properties of aluminum. I suspected I was missing something.
Second, I was so inspired by the stand made of aluminum profiles by Volker Betz, that I spent several hours investigating this option. If you know Volker Betz, please express my gratitude for showing it, and admiration of his/her inventiveness!
The more I investigate this heavy aluminum profiles option, the more convincing it seems. Bosch Rexroth produces a 45x270mm profile that weighs 16.7kg/meter. This seems a plausible alternative to a breadboard base.
I found a 50x100 profile that seems to be a plausible candiate for a the stand's column. My idea is to mount arca compatible clamps can directly to the aluminum profile. And I believe this profile can be firmly secured to the base plate with the correct hardware, thus serving as a sturdy vertical column. The result may prove to be superior to a stereo microscope stand.
CrisR, I had the same idea of filling with small lead pellets, or other similar material, but this may not be necessary. With the above mentioned profiles, I calculate the mass will surpass 10kg -plus gussets, T-nuts, bolts, arca compatible clamps, stage, etc...
QUESTION: Do you think the above outlined stand made of aluminum profile is excessive? More than necesary for 20x, with bright continuous light? Adequate for 50x? I would hate to come up short at some future point, so prefer to error on the side of less prone to vibration. But again the need to control costs is always present.
Why not 100x100 instead of 50x100, the bigger 100x100 would give you stability in both directions, also better against torsion. For a 400mm column the price difference to 50x100 is rather small. Please keep in mind that not only the dimension of the column but also all the connections have an influence on vibrations. So proper surfaces (smooth, flat, in correct angle...) and good design of the screw connections will improve your stand. If done well a 50x lens should work fine.Carmen wrote:QUESTION: Do you think the above outlined stand made of aluminum profile is excessive? More than necesary for 20x, with bright continuous light? Adequate for 50x? I would hate to come up short at some future point, so prefer to error on the side of less prone to vibration. But again the need to control costs is always present.
Carmen sorry only in German language but the pictures may help to understand. These are some design guidelines from machine tool engineering.
http://www.tuhh.de/ft2/wo/Vorlesungen/W ... uteile.pdf
Then flanges deform under the force of a bolt and that can lead that the interface is only loaded very near around the bolt. Making a small cavity helps to distribute the load to a much greater area with higher diameter. That makes a flange design much less prone to wobbling.
AAAAAAh I uploaded a pic but had a mistake in it, can one only upload one pic a day? So on flickr:
Bild2 by Lothman24
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact: